I move amendment No. 31:
In page 104, subsection (1), line 19, to delete " section 108 " and to substitute "this Part".
The subsection defines an equity holder for the purpose of section 108. The term "equity holder" also appears in sections 111, 112 and 113. The amendment is to secure the definition will also apply for purposes of those sections.
This and the next six sections define the terms used in section 108. The purpose of this group of sections is to identify the real and ultimate equity interest in the company and it requires that, to qualify for group relief, the parent company must have the required percentage of the ultimate equity interest.
All this business really facilitates group trade?
That is right.
Are there many groups of this size trading in the country?
Quite a number. The number is increasing as business is being reorganised. No doubt Members of the Committee are aware there has been considerable demand for years to give group relief. Many of these group arrangements are, in fact extremely good for business.
Would a Shell company be affected?
I do not like to discuss the affairs of any particular company.
He is talking about a holding company.
Does a public holding company of that kind not pay one set of taxes only on a consolidated account and, if so, what is the need for all this thing in this part of group relief?
In future each company will be paying its own tax. What we are providing here in relation to group relief is that, if a company in a group has losses, those losses may be absorbed by some other company, be set off against its tax liability.
Provided it is a genuine group.
The point I am making is that, if you read the annual report and accounts of a public holding company in Ireland, such as some of those that have been mentioned, they show you a group profit. Is it the position on that as far as the Revenue Commissioners are concerned each individual company accounts for itself?
That would be for shareholders' information.
If they be the profits of the holding company, or the distributions of other companies in the group which have already carried corporation tax, of course, they would not pay corporation tax again.
Deputy Collins meant it is not a trading company. It is only a shell. All the individual components have paid their share of tax, the holding company would not have to pay any more.
No.
